If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

1) Because its two different OS's? Server 2012 is Win8, Server 2008 is Win7. MS did a lot of work with the kernel in Win8 in order to support phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and servers all with 1 kernel-- is it really that big of a shock that part of the improvements were related to the graphics stack?

Microsoft keeps improving Linux support for Hyper-V since there is a demand for Linux. However, I can't see Microsoft making any effort to support Windows to run on Xen or KVM, no drivers no nothing! Of course they don't - they want to push their Hyper-V and prevent us from using Linux as the OS that runs the VMs.

This is a very dangerous development and I don't see anything good about it. If corporate users indeed consolidate their servers and fall into the Microsoft/Hyper-V trap, it will slowly but surely kill Linux in the server world. What will be left of it is a Microsoft monopoly.

I don't think this would be a good thing for users. It would be also irresponsible of IT managers to go that way - putting all the cards on a single vendor. Let alone the security "black hole" such closed source OS software presents.

To sum it up: Microsoft is hijacking the Linux kernel to push Windows and Hyper-V, yet offer nothing in return.

@phoronix: Michael, why haven't you mentioned Xen in your article? It's at least as valid an alternative to Hyper-V, or Vmware, as KVM is. In fact, in terms of scalability, life migration, performance, versatility, etc. Xen deserves a lot more mention.